Linux Foundation Executive Director Jim Zemlin has said it is time for Solaris to simply move out of the way and yield the future to Linux. 'The future is Linux and Microsoft Windows. It is not Unix or Solaris,' he claims, contending that Sun's strength in long-lifecycle apps is giving way to Linux, as evidenced by the rise of Web apps, where Linux holds a decided advantage, Zemlin claims. With capabilities such as ZFS and DTrace, Sun is trying to compete based on minor features, he says. 'That's literally like noticing the view from a third-story building as it burns to the ground.'

Also, I didn't find ZFS to be a resource hog and it's reliability & speed are unmatched and if only it was better understood, it'll be the next must-have for many desktop users.

I keep reading that ZFS requires at least another gig to function, as compared to a non-ZFS system. Add to that the extra CPU cycles to manage the thing, and yes, it is a resource hog.

I wonder what use ZFS would have for a desktop? I realize it has some cool features, but what advantage are they on a desktop?

P.S. - The reason I was offended was because one of the world's most advanced operating systems was called dead and it's world class features were dismissed as minor.

I know that's why you were offended, but there are two things to remember:

1) Such statements pale before the truly offensive, such as white supremacy rantings, or even the dirty tricks that go on in political campaigns. This stuff is penny ante.

2) Welcome to computers, where superior technology loses all the time to inferior technology. There are all sorts of reasons for why this happens, but in the end it's a fact of life.

If you developed Solaris (I don't but suppose you did), how would you feel if someone said that about the project that you have put so much hard work into?

No, I haven't developed for Solaris, but my advice for those who have mirrors that for its users: Use it and enjoy. If the OS comes back, great. If it fades away, at least some people will have gotten some use out of it.

I'll give this to Sun: They may have fought Windows, Linux, and the x86 architecture for longer than was prudent, but they ended up making use of all three. It's that flexibility that may save them.

"I keep reading that ZFS requires at least another gig to function, as compared to a non-ZFS system. Add to that the extra CPU cycles to manage the thing, and yes, it is a resource hog.

I wonder what use ZFS would have for a desktop? I realize it has some cool features, but what advantage are they on a desktop?"

I used to run a ZFS raid on a P4@2.4GHz and 1GB RAM. It worked fine during a year. The problem was that I got like 20-30MB/sec transfer speed. But that is due to 32bit CPU. ZFS is 128 bit and likes 64 bit CPU. On 64bit with many drives, you can reach 5-600MB/sec at best. On a typical home server you can reach 120MB/sec:

ZFS likes to cache things up, that is the reason it uses all avaiable RAM for cache. ZFS gives back the RAM when asked for, but if no one is using the RAM, ZFS will use all RAM it can grab. Remember, ZFS is an ENTERPRISE server file system. RAM is of concern there. But ZFS works great with 1 GB RAM, as I can testify.

Now, why would anyone use ZFS on the desktop? Well, because of one thing: data integrity. All filesystems relies on the underlying hardware for error detection and correction. But what if the hardware is faulty (a short current spike, cosmic radiation, faulty power supply, over clocked RAM, etc)? Then you are smoked. The bits in RAM will flip on their way to the hard disc. But ZFS detects the flipped bits (in RAM or on the hard drive) and _guarantees_ that the RAM or hard drive is intact with no changes. ZFS ASSUMES that the hardware is unreliable and can deal with all these problems and correct them too. There are problems that ZFS can solve, which no hardware raid can solve. I trust more in ZFS than in hardware raid. My friend which is CIO told me about several occasions where their hardware raid got broke, because the card's BIOS was buggy!

Conclusion; if you value your data, you use ZFS. If not, you dont have to use ZFS.

Here is a long article of a Linux guy who tries out ZFS for home use and loves it. Very informative: